Council splits on proposed land buy

Terrebonne Parish council members yelled and pounded on tables. They accused each other of ethics violations and lying. In a marathon 4-hour session, tempers boiled over, faces turned red and members described themselves as “sickened” and “disgusted.”

In the end, the issue was tabled, and nothing of substance was accomplished. The controversy centered around appropriating $4.8 million to purchase and add infrastructure to a piece of land favored by Parish President Michel Claudet for a new government complex in Gray.

An alternative piece of land was offered by real estate magnate S.P. LaRussa at a lower price, but Michel Claudet said that once infrastructure costs are factored in, the LaRussa property would be more expensive.

The property favored by Claudet is owned by developer Ronald Shaw and would cost the parish $3.4 initially and require $1.4 million in infrastructure investment. LaRussa’s property would cost over $500,000 less up front, but lacks infrastructure. A major selling point of the Shaw property is a sewer facility Shaw would add as a donation.

As a result, according to Claudet, the total cost of LaRussa’s property would be over $2 million more.

The funding for the land purchase was tied into $4.4 million in funding for other road and drainage projects that Claudet said are also pressing. Claudet had requested a yes or no vote, and walked away from the table when it became apparent the vote would be postponed. He left immediately after the vote, before the meeting was over.

The meeting descended into a melee over drainage and ethics in a turn that District 4 Councilwoman Teri Cavalier said, “degrades this body.”

‘The honeymoon is over’

The last council meeting of the year became explosive once thinly veiled accusations began to fly and skeletons were dragged out of the closet. District 3 Councilman Billy Hebert declared “the honeymoon is over” between the parish council and Claudet’s administration.

The night’s brightest fireworks went off when Hebert accused Claudet of trying to strong-arm him into supporting the project.

“I’m just very upset right now because the parish president, in that parking lot, threatened to slow down projects in my district if I didn’t support this project,” said Hebert.

Claudet then stood up, furiously pointed a finger across the room and yelled, “That’s a lie!”

Claudet would later deny the allegations further, saying, “I will take a lie detector test if anybody wants. I would never do like that. It’s not worth the money, and it’s not worth the damage to my integrity. I think that should be beyond reproach.”

Later in the meeting, District 6 Councilman Kevin Voisin called out Hebert with his own ethics concerns.

“I find it ironic that the next meeting after you were photographed at a Saints game with LaRussa, the first or second thing on the agenda is an alternative piece of land from his company,” said Voisin.

Cavalier would later level similar attacks on unnamed colleagues. Several council members lamented Tuesday’s flood damage in her district and railed against the government complex project.

“The word hypocrisy just keeps popping up for me,” said Cavalier. “Let’s see how many of you are in my district when it floods when it won’t benefit your friends.”

District 7 Councilman Clayton Voisin, who sat next to LaRussa at the Saints game on Dec. 2, came out against the proposal, questioning the timing and the quality of the property.

“I don’t think it’s responsible to spend $5 million when the parish just put a wage freeze into effect,” said Voisin.

“And I also don’t think it’s responsible to spend $5 million to improve a property to develop down the road,” he added, noting that the land wouldn’t be built on for at least 18 months.

Voisin then showed pictures to the council that showed standing water over much of the proposed property.

“I have to question (Claudet’s) judgment to ask us to buy a piece of raw flooded land,” said Voisin. “I only thank God our public works yard wasn’t at this site, or it would be under water.”

Claudet responded by saying that the land was still undeveloped and that flooding issues would be handled.

“To solve the flooding, that’s only going to take a little bit of grading,” said Claudet. “We won’t be able to get a piece of property like this at this price again.”

Voisin also accused Claudet of trying to push the council into supporting this project by tying it to funding for other projects.

“Those projects are all necessary, and guess what it’s lumped in with? Land purchase,” said Voisin. “Have we gotten to be like Washington D.C. and their pork barrel politics?”

‘Drainage, Drainage, Drainage’

With many of their constituents homes inundated with water, several councilmembers spoke forcefully against the government complex and for drainage. Several of them even backed the idea of a moratorium on all development in some northern areas in the parish.

“I am pissed off,” said council chairwoman Arlanda Williams. “I’m not going to sit here and vote on nothing being spent until we solve the issue of drainage,” she said while pounding the desk. “I ain’t worth nothing unless I can get water off the streets.”

Hebert said he generally supported the project, but couldn’t agree while homes were flooded.

“I’m 100 percent behind your project, but this is not the time,” said Hebert. “Mother nature has rung the bell.”

Clayton Voisin also opposed the projects based on flooding concerns.

“How can we build in this parish on property that will flood residents and taxpayers?” said Voisin. “It’s an emergency out there. These people should not be living in these conditions.”

Claudet accused the council of obfuscating the issue with drainage and holding up $9.2 million dollars worth of funding for pressing projects.

“Everything you’ve seen tonight is a smokescreen,” said Claudet. “I understand the drainage issues, but we’ll have those fixed by the time we build on this property.

Kevin Voisin, Cavalier, and District 5 Councilman Johnny Pizzolatto formed a moderate wing that were very seriously for fixing the drainage issue, but also for the acquisition of this property.

Pizzalotto said that he understood the flood concerns, but felt the problems could be fixed.

“Flooding is a fact of life in southern Louisiana,” said Pizzolatto. “This project is going to help everybody in the parish, especially children in the juvenile center. We could have passed this in the last meeting. But what happened in between? It rained.”

Flooding has become such a dire issue that Cavalier proposed a development moratorium to be discussed in next month’s meeting. The moratorium would halt development in parts of the parish that drain into the CCC ditch, which habitually floods her district.

“I just wish to God I could operate those machines. I’d just start digging,” said Cavalier. “The bottom line is, we need it,” she said of the government complex. “To use (drainage) at this time is just hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with this project.”

The idea of a development halt is controversial, but it does have some support on the council.

Kevin Voisin came out in favor of the idea, but said there should be exceptions if the project has enough of its own drainage, such as a retention pond, to not have an impact on 25-year storms. According to Voisin, such restrictions are already in place in other cities in the country.

“The moratorium is not about hurting developers. It’s actually about helping them long term. If we don’t have drainage for that development it’s going to hurt them,” said Voisin.

In the end, the idea was pushed back to committee by a 6-3 vote. The motion, put forth by Arlanda Williams, also requests a study regarding the drainage impacts of the project. Cavalier, Pizzolatto and Kevin Voisin voted against it.

After the Honeymoon…

The fracas left rifts in the parish government that may never heal. Some have already claimed that officials are putting ties to developers ahead of the needs of the parish, and the land for the government complex may end up costing the parish much more.

With the honeymoon over, Cavalier felt ready for divorce.

“I’ve got two years left on this council, and I’m not doing this again. If this were a marriage I would’ve gotten a divorce six months in, and I would’ve a gotten a big settlement,” said Cavalier.

Kevin Voisin later spoke about the need for solving the parish’s “buddy” complex.

“You have this kind of like clash of the titans of developers with the council, and it’s playing out with us being the mouthpieces,” said Voisin. “If every project comes down to who’s land is it on and who’s making a buck, we’re not going to get anything done.”

Claudet was concerned that not acting on this would ultimately hurt the parish.

“You know, this is a $6 million piece of property. We’d be paying $3.4 million,” Claudet said the day after the council meeting. “What I was told by Ronnie Shaw was that if the deal was not closed by Dec. 31, we had no deal.

“We’re at his mercy. I’m going to be begging him and we’re going try to see if he’ll allow us to continue to try to get this deal through,” he continued.

Kevin Voisin also thought further delays could cost the parish money.

“If we don’t do it now we’ll do it later at a higher price. Anybody who’s worried about drainage and wants the CCC ditch fixed before we move forward, that’s fine. But we should buy this property now while it’s cheap,” he said.

Most council members have registered a lot of disappointment with the meeting, although District 8 Councilman Joey Cehan and District 9 Councilman Pete Lambert were largely silent during the meeting. For Michel Claudet, the night marked a low point in his interaction with the parish government.

“I’ve never been so disappointed in the Terrebonne Parish Government in my entire life as the spectacle that I witnessed and unfortunately was a part of on Wednesday night,” said Claudet.